Red meat for everybody

Make your selection: President Bush needlessly took us into an unwinnable
war in Iraq based on false intelligence, which he later hyped as
trustworthy, leading to the deaths (as of Sept. 8) of 2,656 service members
and the maiming of many thousands more; or, President Clinton was so
preoccupied with his groin, politics and legacy that it prevented him from
adequately responding to the growing terrorist challenge on his watch,
leading to the slaughter of nearly 3,000 Americans five years ago.

There is enough red meat in the release of the initial report by the U.S.
Senate Committee on Intelligence to support the conclusion about President
Bush for those who never trusted him and believe he was illegitimately
elected in 2000. And there is enough red meat in the two-part ABC miniseries
to support the second conclusion that President Clinton and his team fiddled
while al-Qaida plotted to burn down America.

Suppose both sides are right: President Bush is a liar and is so sick that
he would jeopardize American lives for an illogical crusade to establish his
view of democracy in a place that has known nothing but dictatorship, murder
and mayhem for as long as history has been recorded; and Bill Clinton cared
nothing about the safety and security of his fellow Americans and
deliberately put both in jeopardy in favor of personal gratification.

You have to be somewhat twisted to believe that any president cares so
little about his responsibilities and the trust and hopes the citizens place
in our land's highest office that he would let us down in such ways.

Neither position is completely credible, yet there are people on both sides
who embrace these beliefs. That is because the object of modern politics is
not to say and do things that benefit the country and promote the general
welfare but to gain or maintain political power. Gaining power, including
the means to getting it, is all that matters.

After Pearl Harbor, some questioned whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt
deliberately ignored warnings about the Japanese threat so he could use an
attack to isolate the isolationists and declare war not only on Japan, but
grant Winston Churchill's wish for the United States to join Britain in the
war against Hitler.

In his book, "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor," Robert
Stinnett, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, writes
that on Nov. 25, 1941 Japan's Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the
group of Japanese warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7. Naval
records, released a few years ago, prove (says Stinnett) that from Nov. 17
to 25 the United States Navy intercepted 83 messages that Yamamoto sent to
his carriers. Part of the Nov. 25 message read: "Šthe task force, keeping
its movements strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines
and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening
of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet in
Hawaii and deal it a mortal blowŠ"

Since World War II, there have been suspicions whether the Roosevelt
administration knew the attack was coming. But here's the interesting part
in light of the carpet bomb politics of today. Stinnett writes, "When Thomas
Dewey was running for president against Roosevelt in 1944 he found out about
America's ability to intercept Japan's radio messages, and thought this
knowledge would enable him to defeat the popular FDR. In the fall of that
year, Dewey planned a series of speeches charging FDR with foreknowledge of
the attack. Ultimately, Gen. George Marshall, then chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, persuaded Dewey not to make the speeches. Japan's naval
leaders did not realize America had cracked their codes, and Dewey's
speeches could have sacrificed America's code-breaking advantage. So, Dewey
said nothing, and in November FDR was elected president for the fourth
time."

When one considers contemporary politics, how many politicians come to mind
that would place the welfare of their country ahead of themselves? It
matters less which "side" is right in this Clinton vs. Bush debate than it
does whether Iraq can become a fully stabilized beachhead for democracy in
the region and terrorism can be dealt a mortal blow.

We can't afford to play the blame game now that we are in these wars. There
is no alternative to winning them.

Misc.

Mobile

About Townhall.com

Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.

Townhall is packed with breaking news headlines, political news, and conservative opinion with Townhall columnists including Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, Star Parker, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, and many more of your favorite conservatives.
Political cartoons full of satire and political humor from editorial cartoonists including Michael Ramirez, Glenn McCoy, and Henry Payne.

Townhall.com also features the latest news videos and pictures on the latest political hot topics including health care reform, the economy, immigration, government tax, President Obama, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Iraq, immigration, politics, gay marriage laws, and many more big news issues.